- 17,171
- 5,028
Hi everyone. While I had the chance, I wanted to make a thread to discuss our current standards for Laser/Light beam dodging and what we find is, or isnt, acceptable to be a light speed attack.
"Should our standards not be tight anymore?"
NO. This is not what im pushing for and im addressing this before beginning since this isnt the first time i've seen this come up.
Let me be clear here. I am not pushing to make our Light Speed/Beam standards far more loose to the point where the generic and infamous "beam of light" trend will get characters speeds upgraded. Like many, I am in full agreement that this is not remotely enough to let characters become SoL, FTL, and so on. So this can stay as I have 0 problems with that.
What I do want to discuss here is different.
What things about our standards should we talk about/change?
As I said before, I have no intention of making our light standards loose to the point where vague material can give significant upgrades. That being said, there are a few aspects of our standards that not only me but other users feel should not be actual standards to disqualify some feats as being light speed. They are as followed:
-Light not being allowed to bend
-Light not traveling in a straight path
-Light not being allowed to be tangible
These 3 things as some of the qualifications characters currently need to avoid in order for their moves, attacks, etc. to be considered real light and have upgrades possibly apply to them. In other words, light currently needs to travel in a straight path, not bend, and it needs to be intangible for us to consider it as actual light.
While doing some digging and thinking, some arguments have recently come up from others (including myself) as to why these standards should not actually be standards. Not naming names, but I will quote the arguments here so people can see where the purpose of this thread originated from in the first place.
Argument 1:
"Honestly, I heavily dislike the rule that we can't say Light is light if it bends. It's the only power we assume can only be used as a beam rather than freely controlled like any other user of the power, which is all the more nonsensical considering that light can bend in real life in certain circumstances, despite the fact no one can manipulate light."
Argument 2 (goes right with the first one above):
"This. "Light bending" easily sounds like the user is simply using light manipulation and like how I pointed out above, the user can also simply just be focusing the attack on a specific target, which would explain why the attack "bends".
We really need to revise our light qualification standards in general to be blatant."
Argument 3:
"Laser/Light Beam Dodging Feats's page regarding those standards are indeed strict, but I not sure where "bending" light is mentioned on the page that would disqualify the beam to being light speed or not. Will be neutral to this though."
Argument 4:
"Which is normally true for light though. Anyway to quote a certain someone from Quora:
Yes, light can bend through diffraction and refraction. Diffraction is when light bends around a corner or a small opening and fills the larger space beyond it. Refraction is the bending of light when it transitions through different mediums, such as light seen in the air and entering into water.
(So-called "bent light")
Light travels at different speeds through different mediums, which causes refraction. When light passes from one medium to another, it slows down or speeds up. This causes the light to bend. Refraction is responsible for image formation in eyes and in cameras. Rainbows are also a result of refraction, where blue light is refracted more than red light.
Now, coming to Ayush Singh's point. Gravity does not directly bend light. Instead, high gravitational fields can cause bending in space-time, causing light to travel along the resulting distorted paths of space-time.
While photons do not have rest mass, they do have momentum, enabling their interaction with space-time. While gravity is a force in the Newtonian model, it is the result of the inherent warping of the shape of the universe by massive objects in general relativity. All paths of motion, including the motion of light, are warped by this warping of shape.
This light bending results in the gravitational lens effect, where the presence of matter between a light source and an observer leads to the bending of light toward the body as it travels to the observer. The more massive and dense the intervening matter, the more the space-time between source and observer is warped, and the more pronounced the gravitational lensing effect is.
Light bending can also indirectly result from relativistic orthogonal acceleration. For example, an observer holding a flashlight horizontally in an elevator moving upward at a tremendous acceleration would notice the beam deflecting downwards. This is because acceleration and gravity are equivalent in general relativity. This phenomenon is called principle equivalence and has been used on microelectrical mechanical systems on orbiting satellites."
Just to clarify, these are not my arguments. They come from other users who have commented on the topic for themselves. Anyway, here are the opinions that came up on why some of these standards should not be actual standards and why our light standards need to be more lenient. I'll explain in more detail below.
Light bending/going in a straight path
For what the quotes above are referring to in regards to these 2 qualifications, light being able to bend or not being able to go into a straight path should not disqualify moves being legitimate light and moving at light speeds in their respective fictions.
Just as the 1st quote argues, by making "light cannot bend" as a qualification it not only makes the assumption that Light Manipulation is a non-existent power to be used in fiction for light-based techniques, it also suggests that the users of said light cannot manipulate it to different degrees and extents that fall under their capabilities. That they can only use it in the form of a beam in other words. Which as pointed out should be nonsensical since even in real life, where none of us can manipulate light legitimately (and definitely no where remotely close to the extent of fictional characters), light is able to bend in some situations. So why exactly should this be a reason to reject the moves of characters as being real light based when "light bending" is not something that strictly happens only in fiction, but in real life as well?
To add my personal 2 cents into this, lets give a hypothetical scenerio. We have 2 characters fighting in a valley with tall rock pillars and structures, giving them limited fighting space. One of these characters has Light Manipulation and is able to fire long-ranged light beams. In the middle of this fight, the opponent is moving quickly to the point where firing beams directly at them is fairly difficult because of the setting and the fact that they are comparable in speed with the Light Manipulator. So in order to successfully land an attack, the Light Manipulator shoots their beams and is able to manipulate and concentrate their attacks to the point where they can travel in irregular positions, bending to the point where they will hit the target despite the latter not being in a direct path for a perfect clean hit.
Are we really going to be so quick to dismiss the attacks of this light manipulator being real light and not even consider the strong possibility that their attacks bended and moved in non-straight paths because this light manipulator has exceptional manipulation and control over their ow techniques? Something we in real life would never be able to even dream of pulling off? Are we really going to be so quick to say this characters attacks are not real light because they had the common sense to redirect and manipulate their attacks to land successful hits and not wait for the one opportunity to lanuch their moves in a straight clean path? Which can, y'know, always be easily avoided?
To put it simply, light bending and/or not traveling in a straight path should not be a disqualification against moves being considered real light when the characters light-based techniques can just as easily be able to be controlled in relation to the characters ability to freely control said light. And with light being able to bend in real life under different circumstances, this shows that this is not just a "fiction is whatever" phenomena. It's more about the characters skill and abilities so they can fight without needing to only attack people when they're only directly across from themselves. So unless every single character whos light techniques are accepted as using real light need to have their Light Manipulation abilities be limited to just using beams in a straight path, we need to remove or at least change this qualification.
That should cover the first 2 things that I said i'd be covering. The 3rd one is something that I most recently came to under my own realization, so the next section with be solely my own opinion about it.
Light needing to be intangible
For this last point, this one is not entirely wrong, it just needs to be more lenient on a case by case basis. For a verse at the very least that doesnt contain characters that are capable of interacting with intangible forces, light being a physical tangible force to them and/or their perspectives should still count as a disqualification against their moves being considered real light. Or in other words, if the characters from a verse can only interact with physical forces, yet they can come in contact with light, then the light-based moves from that specific verse have a legitimate anti-feat against them.
However, for verses that do have characters who can interact with intangible forces? Thats a different story and this is a problem I noticed when seeing this point come up. Again, not listing names:
"Even if you want to argue that they're interacting with it, they have non physical interaction for a reason. Plasma, gas, and souls can be touched by these guys."
This is a very good point brought up that leaves a glaring impression behind to say the least. While light being intangible is a current qualification for something to be accepted as real light, and interacting with light-based moves can be taken as an anti-feat against said moves being intangible like real light is, why would this be an anti-feat against characters that can interact and make contact with intangible forces? To be more specific, characters with Non-Physical Interaction are capable of making contact with beings who are non-corporeal and/or intangible. Ghosts/spirits as the common standard form for this power. If characters are capable of making contact with someone/something that is purely non-physical, what reason is there to say that they cannot make contact with light all of a sudden? Light being an intangible force is no different than plasma, souls, or gases being intangible forces as the quote pointed out, so if someone can interact with the latters, there's no reason they cannot interact with the former.
In other words, "Light needing to be intangible" can remain as a qualification, but only for verses that are limited to touching physical forces and do not possess characters with Non-Phyiscal Interaction. For verses that do possess characters with Non-Physical Interaction, and have light-based attacks, light being able to be touched by said characters should not be a disqualification against them being real light/light speed. This should be a case by case basis depending on the verse.
Conclusion
These 3 qualifications should be removed from our Light Speed/Beam standards; Light bending and/or not traveling in a straight path completely ignores the idea that characters are simply capable of manipulating their light based moves in ways that are far beyond what we I.R.L are capable of doing ourselves and also ignores that, in some situations, light in real life can also bend; Light being intangible also needs to be given more leniency depending on the verse in question as characters who can interact with intangible forces and/or anything thats non-tangible would be able to interact with light-based attacks, which are also intangible, therefore it should not be a disqualification against the light-based moves from those respective verses in regards to be the same as real light.
Our Light Beam/Speed Standards can remain tight, they should just become somewhat looser. That is what im pushing for.
Agreed: Myself, Cal, YoboBlue, DMUA, Therefir, DarkDragonMedus, hellbeast1, M3X, TriforcePower1, Amexim, ShrekAlmighty, Drite77, KazuiK, Mr.Bambu, Aernasilver (15)
Neutral: Dragonmasterxyz (1)
Against: AKM, Aguila(?), TataHakai, LSirLancelotDuLacl, Wokistan, Sigurd, DontTalkDT, Antvasima, Kepekley23, Dargoo Faust, SomebodyData (10, possibly 11)
"Should our standards not be tight anymore?"
NO. This is not what im pushing for and im addressing this before beginning since this isnt the first time i've seen this come up.
Let me be clear here. I am not pushing to make our Light Speed/Beam standards far more loose to the point where the generic and infamous "beam of light" trend will get characters speeds upgraded. Like many, I am in full agreement that this is not remotely enough to let characters become SoL, FTL, and so on. So this can stay as I have 0 problems with that.
What I do want to discuss here is different.
What things about our standards should we talk about/change?
As I said before, I have no intention of making our light standards loose to the point where vague material can give significant upgrades. That being said, there are a few aspects of our standards that not only me but other users feel should not be actual standards to disqualify some feats as being light speed. They are as followed:
-Light not being allowed to bend
-Light not traveling in a straight path
-Light not being allowed to be tangible
These 3 things as some of the qualifications characters currently need to avoid in order for their moves, attacks, etc. to be considered real light and have upgrades possibly apply to them. In other words, light currently needs to travel in a straight path, not bend, and it needs to be intangible for us to consider it as actual light.
While doing some digging and thinking, some arguments have recently come up from others (including myself) as to why these standards should not actually be standards. Not naming names, but I will quote the arguments here so people can see where the purpose of this thread originated from in the first place.
Argument 1:
"Honestly, I heavily dislike the rule that we can't say Light is light if it bends. It's the only power we assume can only be used as a beam rather than freely controlled like any other user of the power, which is all the more nonsensical considering that light can bend in real life in certain circumstances, despite the fact no one can manipulate light."
Argument 2 (goes right with the first one above):
"This. "Light bending" easily sounds like the user is simply using light manipulation and like how I pointed out above, the user can also simply just be focusing the attack on a specific target, which would explain why the attack "bends".
We really need to revise our light qualification standards in general to be blatant."
Argument 3:
"Laser/Light Beam Dodging Feats's page regarding those standards are indeed strict, but I not sure where "bending" light is mentioned on the page that would disqualify the beam to being light speed or not. Will be neutral to this though."
Argument 4:
"Which is normally true for light though. Anyway to quote a certain someone from Quora:
Yes, light can bend through diffraction and refraction. Diffraction is when light bends around a corner or a small opening and fills the larger space beyond it. Refraction is the bending of light when it transitions through different mediums, such as light seen in the air and entering into water.
(So-called "bent light")
Light travels at different speeds through different mediums, which causes refraction. When light passes from one medium to another, it slows down or speeds up. This causes the light to bend. Refraction is responsible for image formation in eyes and in cameras. Rainbows are also a result of refraction, where blue light is refracted more than red light.
Now, coming to Ayush Singh's point. Gravity does not directly bend light. Instead, high gravitational fields can cause bending in space-time, causing light to travel along the resulting distorted paths of space-time.
While photons do not have rest mass, they do have momentum, enabling their interaction with space-time. While gravity is a force in the Newtonian model, it is the result of the inherent warping of the shape of the universe by massive objects in general relativity. All paths of motion, including the motion of light, are warped by this warping of shape.
This light bending results in the gravitational lens effect, where the presence of matter between a light source and an observer leads to the bending of light toward the body as it travels to the observer. The more massive and dense the intervening matter, the more the space-time between source and observer is warped, and the more pronounced the gravitational lensing effect is.
Light bending can also indirectly result from relativistic orthogonal acceleration. For example, an observer holding a flashlight horizontally in an elevator moving upward at a tremendous acceleration would notice the beam deflecting downwards. This is because acceleration and gravity are equivalent in general relativity. This phenomenon is called principle equivalence and has been used on microelectrical mechanical systems on orbiting satellites."
Just to clarify, these are not my arguments. They come from other users who have commented on the topic for themselves. Anyway, here are the opinions that came up on why some of these standards should not be actual standards and why our light standards need to be more lenient. I'll explain in more detail below.
Light bending/going in a straight path
For what the quotes above are referring to in regards to these 2 qualifications, light being able to bend or not being able to go into a straight path should not disqualify moves being legitimate light and moving at light speeds in their respective fictions.
Just as the 1st quote argues, by making "light cannot bend" as a qualification it not only makes the assumption that Light Manipulation is a non-existent power to be used in fiction for light-based techniques, it also suggests that the users of said light cannot manipulate it to different degrees and extents that fall under their capabilities. That they can only use it in the form of a beam in other words. Which as pointed out should be nonsensical since even in real life, where none of us can manipulate light legitimately (and definitely no where remotely close to the extent of fictional characters), light is able to bend in some situations. So why exactly should this be a reason to reject the moves of characters as being real light based when "light bending" is not something that strictly happens only in fiction, but in real life as well?
To add my personal 2 cents into this, lets give a hypothetical scenerio. We have 2 characters fighting in a valley with tall rock pillars and structures, giving them limited fighting space. One of these characters has Light Manipulation and is able to fire long-ranged light beams. In the middle of this fight, the opponent is moving quickly to the point where firing beams directly at them is fairly difficult because of the setting and the fact that they are comparable in speed with the Light Manipulator. So in order to successfully land an attack, the Light Manipulator shoots their beams and is able to manipulate and concentrate their attacks to the point where they can travel in irregular positions, bending to the point where they will hit the target despite the latter not being in a direct path for a perfect clean hit.
Are we really going to be so quick to dismiss the attacks of this light manipulator being real light and not even consider the strong possibility that their attacks bended and moved in non-straight paths because this light manipulator has exceptional manipulation and control over their ow techniques? Something we in real life would never be able to even dream of pulling off? Are we really going to be so quick to say this characters attacks are not real light because they had the common sense to redirect and manipulate their attacks to land successful hits and not wait for the one opportunity to lanuch their moves in a straight clean path? Which can, y'know, always be easily avoided?
To put it simply, light bending and/or not traveling in a straight path should not be a disqualification against moves being considered real light when the characters light-based techniques can just as easily be able to be controlled in relation to the characters ability to freely control said light. And with light being able to bend in real life under different circumstances, this shows that this is not just a "fiction is whatever" phenomena. It's more about the characters skill and abilities so they can fight without needing to only attack people when they're only directly across from themselves. So unless every single character whos light techniques are accepted as using real light need to have their Light Manipulation abilities be limited to just using beams in a straight path, we need to remove or at least change this qualification.
That should cover the first 2 things that I said i'd be covering. The 3rd one is something that I most recently came to under my own realization, so the next section with be solely my own opinion about it.
Light needing to be intangible
For this last point, this one is not entirely wrong, it just needs to be more lenient on a case by case basis. For a verse at the very least that doesnt contain characters that are capable of interacting with intangible forces, light being a physical tangible force to them and/or their perspectives should still count as a disqualification against their moves being considered real light. Or in other words, if the characters from a verse can only interact with physical forces, yet they can come in contact with light, then the light-based moves from that specific verse have a legitimate anti-feat against them.
However, for verses that do have characters who can interact with intangible forces? Thats a different story and this is a problem I noticed when seeing this point come up. Again, not listing names:
"Even if you want to argue that they're interacting with it, they have non physical interaction for a reason. Plasma, gas, and souls can be touched by these guys."
This is a very good point brought up that leaves a glaring impression behind to say the least. While light being intangible is a current qualification for something to be accepted as real light, and interacting with light-based moves can be taken as an anti-feat against said moves being intangible like real light is, why would this be an anti-feat against characters that can interact and make contact with intangible forces? To be more specific, characters with Non-Physical Interaction are capable of making contact with beings who are non-corporeal and/or intangible. Ghosts/spirits as the common standard form for this power. If characters are capable of making contact with someone/something that is purely non-physical, what reason is there to say that they cannot make contact with light all of a sudden? Light being an intangible force is no different than plasma, souls, or gases being intangible forces as the quote pointed out, so if someone can interact with the latters, there's no reason they cannot interact with the former.
In other words, "Light needing to be intangible" can remain as a qualification, but only for verses that are limited to touching physical forces and do not possess characters with Non-Phyiscal Interaction. For verses that do possess characters with Non-Physical Interaction, and have light-based attacks, light being able to be touched by said characters should not be a disqualification against them being real light/light speed. This should be a case by case basis depending on the verse.
Conclusion
These 3 qualifications should be removed from our Light Speed/Beam standards; Light bending and/or not traveling in a straight path completely ignores the idea that characters are simply capable of manipulating their light based moves in ways that are far beyond what we I.R.L are capable of doing ourselves and also ignores that, in some situations, light in real life can also bend; Light being intangible also needs to be given more leniency depending on the verse in question as characters who can interact with intangible forces and/or anything thats non-tangible would be able to interact with light-based attacks, which are also intangible, therefore it should not be a disqualification against the light-based moves from those respective verses in regards to be the same as real light.
Our Light Beam/Speed Standards can remain tight, they should just become somewhat looser. That is what im pushing for.
Agreed: Myself, Cal, YoboBlue, DMUA, Therefir, DarkDragonMedus, hellbeast1, M3X, TriforcePower1, Amexim, ShrekAlmighty, Drite77, KazuiK, Mr.Bambu, Aernasilver (15)
Neutral: Dragonmasterxyz (1)
Against: AKM, Aguila(?), TataHakai, LSirLancelotDuLacl, Wokistan, Sigurd, DontTalkDT, Antvasima, Kepekley23, Dargoo Faust, SomebodyData (10, possibly 11)
